And it's up for a vote again.

I've no idea why, but the issue is the same, so either you are concerned about this or not. If you are concerned, I suggest calling in the morning, or writing now.

http://www.stopthespying.org/

Entering my zip code led me right to Pete DeFazio, who is already leading the way on civil rights issues.

Well, there is hammering Pelosi. She is the one that keeps letting this thing in.

Makes me wonder if there are not Dems protecting themselves here...

Nancy Pelosi is hard to figure. As many may recall, the magical Room Number 641-A is located at the Folsom Street AT&T facility in San Francisco. On the surface, one would expect outrage from the Representative of that district. I am not sure what to make of this speech in light of recent developments. The New York Times made it pretty clear that the White House is happy with the new bill. There is something fishy in Denmark when any legislation makes them happy. I am all for finding terrorists, but the traditional FISA system has never stood in the way of doing that important work.

This is about establishing some legal basis for a "get out of jail" card.

That's ALL it is.

So now we are back to the oldest of questions:

Why?

My hunch is that some Democrats knew about the wiretapping, but for whatever reason, didn't speak up about it.

Perhaps they had other entanglements, maybe they were just weak. I don't accept ignorance at that level though.

If this whole thing ends up in the courts, they could end up there mixed up in it, and that could be jail, or at the least some very ugly political ramifications for them and perhaps the party as a whole.

The Bush administration quite simply wants to establish that they can have a private entity follow their orders and circumvent the law. If they get this, they essentially then get their idea of executive privlige to be seen as being somehow legimate.

It isn't, until we see some decisions that reflect that. The courts are not going to make those decisions on their own. However, if there is legislation, they might.

At times, we've seen SCOTUS punt and call things political questions. Maybe it's a matter of the rule of law being what the people say it is.

Our current court is inclined to entertain this kind of BS, and is friendly to this administration on some levels, but not others. Not sure how that might all go.

The key however, is that granting that immunity also keeps most of the matter out of the courts because the people would then have no real avenue to bring the case forward.

That leaves congress itself.

If the people bring cases, those are going to be heard. On the other hand, congress may or may not explore those things, depending on the politics.